He genocided way more people than Hitler %-wise (like 10% of humanity, let that sink in).Yet everybody just sees in him the great statesman instead of a monster. Why?
>>18772461He didn't shoot himself in a bunker
>>18772461>great statesmanLiterally who? All academics agree the man was wicked af
the difference is who he genocided
>>18772461Cause he wasnt really genociding specific people. Anyone who got in his way or tried to betray him, he just destroyed. It wasnt some sort of vendetta against a certain group of people. Hitler was butthurt about jews and gypsies so thats who he specifically targeted. And thats worse because youre intentionally trying to remove a certain culture from the world. Also Khan just mass murdered people or made them slaves. He didnt set up shit to gas people.
>>18772461I don't know maybe the difference is that Hitler is from a more recent time and people think that things were different in the times of Genghis Khan and that things worked like that so it's somewhat justified. Everyone was invading so he wasn't that bad compared to the rest of that time.You could say the same about Alexander, Cesar and all the great conquerors from the past. For example Alexander is seen as this great man that wanted to create a better world, that wanted to make a multicultural empire, spread the good ideas from Greece, etc. But from the point of view of the people he invaded he was an invasor wanting to change their culture, etc.
>>18772461Cause he lived 800 years ago in the Middle Ages. 500 years from now people are gonna think humans in the early 20th century lived brutal harsh lives and leaders like Hitler were just the norm.
>per capitawe don't use that here
>>18772461Only liberal simps (mongolboos) worship this guy. It's a really weird phenomenom where they go as far as accusing the mongols of lying in their sources where they brag about the people they slaughtered
>>18772461Hitler was an incel. Genghis was a chad. That's the literal difference. If Hitler had a harem of women and tons of descendants and won he'd be a literal god on earth.
>>18772461Because he didn't rule for a dozen years, start a war on every front, then get his nation completely obliterated?
>>18772461Genghis won his wars, Hitler lost his war and died cowardly.
>>18772461Propaganda against the Reich is ongoing while the Mongolians are a distant memory. No one is worried about the next Mongolian empire. Should they be worried about the Reich?
>>18772461Because europeans belive in humanist morals and hold themselves to a idea of a civilisation. This now defines modern morals globally and is why people hate hitler.Temujin is on the other hand seen as existing in the same state of pre humanist and civilisational europeans, like many european pagans he operates of a might makes right and will driven philosophy.Europeans therefore see temujin (and other figures like atila, early vikings (great heathen army and ragnar lothbrok) or Alexander the great) as parts of that same primordial pre humanist pagan morality and treat them with a kind of reverance and awe.Simply put he existed outside the humanist morals that would dominate europe and the world and so is seen both as ignorant of the immorality of his crimes and as embodying a older more primal humanity rather than as a violator of the modern morality like hitler.We hate the uncivilised but love the pre civilised.
>>18772468Literally half your countrynis named Khan
>>18772613Hitler could have easily had a harem. German women basically worshipped him. I guess the reason he didn't is, he didn't want to send a wrong message to soldiers. He didn't eat meat, drink or smoke either.
>>18772737Yeah he was a faggot incel and look at his reputation. Worshiped by browns
>>18772461Hitler killed because of racism genghis killed because of pragmatism
>>18772839>Pragmatist! Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of Hitler, Dude, at least it's an ethos.”
>>18772461>why is this Medieval conqueror who razed cities as a psychological weapon to get other cities to surrender without a fight not seen in the same light as this 20th century guy who, in a world where universal human rights, international law, telecommunications and mass literacy were a thing, misused all human technical progress to mass-produce death and torture in industrial death factories? This guy who, in a world that had just experienced the worst "war to end all wars" in human history , started an even worse war? This guy who set back humanity decades by slaughtering masses of educated, literate people across all of Europe? This guy whose victims are in some cases still alive so that his atrocities are living memory?Oh jeez I dunno... why?
>>18772896We literally do worse than Hitler every day with factory farms. We're in no position to moralfag about himhttps://benthams.substack.com/p/factory-farming-delenda-est
People who Ghengis was killing are not running American media today.
>>18772461It was a long time ago and he actually won his wars to establish his kingdom.A long passage of Time usually adds more mystique to something as well
>>18772461Bad comparison. Genghis Khan was an actually succesfull conqurer who established one of the largest empires in history. Hitler was a failed conquerer who caused the destruction of his country. Hitler is more comparable to failed conquerers like Mithridates VI, who also has a negative reputation despite having lived very long ago.Hitler will probably be forgotten in popular imagination while Genghis will still be remembered because people tend to forget failed conquerers. No one is talking today about Mithridates or Francisco Solano López either.Btw, it's important to know that before Hitler, the go-to "evil ruler" people invoked in rethoric was the Biblical Pharaoh, becuse in the Exodus story, he ruins his nation through his cruelty and arrogance. After WW2, Hitler got this role because he did exactly the same thing.
>>18772461No he didnt. Post any proofs. Not even chinese sources propose this.
>>18772901animals arent people you retard.
>>18772461For all I know, everyone regards him as a monster.
>>18772461>He genocided way more people than Hitler %-wise (like 10% of humanity, let that sink in).Fanfic nonsense, there's absolutely zero way of knowing how many people died during his conquests.
>>18772972Why does that matter?
Killing lots of people =/= genocide, although it could be, it really has more to do with intent. People die in war, especially wars of conquest, and genocide is usually a consequence of this, but genocide in and of itself is an intention, not an action per se
>>18772461Because the majority are trooned nigger cattle, who crave to be raped by someone more menacing and stronger than they are, natural slaves. It's a deeply homosexual "admiration" for some worthless slant-eyed dirty, filthy, despotic and nomadic yellow chink, who died because of a plague.
